mcp_opendaw_duplicate_audiounit

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that audio regions reference the same audio files (shared resources), and explicitly lists what gets copied (instrument, effects, tracks, regions, notes, automation). It also states it 'Creates a new audio unit', implying the original remains. However, it does not mention whether sends, bus assignments, or track ordering are included, nor any side effects like undo behavior, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a front-loaded summary followed by a detailed bullet list of copied components. Every bullet adds distinct, useful information, and the parameter explanation is included inline. There is no filler or redundant content, making it appropriately sized for the complexity of the operation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of duplicating an audio unit, the description is quite thorough, covering most major components and explicitly noting that audio files are shared references. However, it omits certain aspects that might be relevant (e.g., sends, bus routing, track order), making it not fully exhaustive. The presence of an output schema (though not shown) and the return statement help complete the picture.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has only one parameter, unit_index, with no description. The tool description compensates completely by stating 'unit_index: Source audio unit index to duplicate.', giving clear semantic meaning. This fully covers the parameter despite 0% schema-coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool 'Duplicate an audio unit with all its content' and enumerates the exact components (instrument, effects, tracks, regions, notes, automation). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like duplicate_region or duplicate_notes, which target only subsets of content.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implicitly conveys when to use this tool: when you need a full audio unit duplication rather than a selective copy. It clearly scopes the operation to 'all its content' and lists what is copied, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion cases (e.g., 'use duplicate_region for single regions'), so it falls short of a perfect 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.